Tom Gordon: Johnson’s choice between the unsustainable and the suicidal

But despite the hype, the Bill is not that dramatic. It will not be introduced to parliament like a true Bill. As a mere draft, it will exist in consultation limbo. Nor will it lead to a referendum this side of the 2021 election.

“Because of the pandemic... it will clearly not be possible to organise and hold an independence referendum that is beyond legal challenge before the end of the current Parliamentary term next year,” the PfG admitted.

However, the draft could act as the basis for genuine legislation in the 2021-26 parliament.

READ MORE: IndyRef2: New poll shows 53% would back independence as SNP set for record Holyrood majority 

A similar draft Referendum Bill was issued in 2016 in response to the Brexit vote, and came to nothing.

A few months later, the SNP lost a third of their MPs in a general election and the idea was parked until May 2019, when Ms Sturgeon said she wanted the vote in late 2020.

That was knocked on the head by Boris Johnson refusing to grant Holyrood the requisite powers under Section 30 of the 1998 Scotland Act, with Covid the final coup de grace.

So another draft Referendum Bill does not Indyref2 make. Events have a habit of getting in the way.

That said, the announcement has, as intended, sharpened the focus on the coming Holyrood election, with Ms Sturgeon telling MSPs she will “seek a clear endorsement of Scotland’s right to choose our own future” next May.

The PfG added that if the next Holyrood session voted for Indyref2, “there could then be no moral or democratic justification whatsoever for any UK government” saying No.

That strikes me as a naive notion, even if there is another SNP majority.

It takes no account of the nature of the decision facing the Prime Minister, either this Prime Minister or a future one. It just assumes they’ll suck it up whatever the consequences.

Ask the SNP ‘What’s in it for Boris?’ and they brush away the question by insisting it’s “unsustainable” for him to keep blocking a referendum.

They used to say the same for Theresa May, but she did it anyway.

As the SNP MP Joanna Cherry QC said recently: “It may be a comforting thought that his [the PM’s] position is unsustainable, but it’s a hope at best.”

Professor Sir John Curtice has said it would difficult not to have Indyref2 by 2024 if the SNP won another majority, citing the precedents of its win of 2011 leading to the 2014 vote and the UK Tory majority in 2015 leading to the EU referendum.

But while precedent is persuasive, it is not decisive. The context is critical.

When he signed up for the 2014 referendum, David Cameron assumed he’d breeze it because support for Yes was then in the mid-30s in the polls.

The Section 30 Order giving Holyrood referendum powers also went through the Commons and Lords without too much fuss.

But the working assumption now must be that the Unionists would lose.

Ms Sturgeon will try to frame the election as a choice between her and Mr Johnson, and Indyref2 a choice between him and independence.

Framed like that, those are not fights Mr Johnson can win.

READ MORE: SNP MP warns of 'growing despair' in party over lack of planning for Indyref2

If he granted a Section 30 order he would, in all likelihood, be signing the United Kingdom’s death warrant.

He would also be signing his own and possibly that of the Conservative and Unionist Party to boot.

These are not peripheral issues.

Is Mr Johnson that obliging and altruistic? Or is he weak, shameless and desperate to stay in power?

More than that, is any Prime Minister now likely to grant a Section 30 Order knowing it could end their premiership and split and wreck their party. The party issue is critical.

Politicians know power is ephemeral and the tide of history will wash them away soon enough. But parties are supposed to endure.

No leader would knowingly wish to endanger their party, something closer to a family than an institution. It is an unforgivable political sin.

Imagine how it could play out.

Mr Johnson, self-styled minister for the Union, has repeatedly said the No of 2014 is good for a generation.

If he backed a Section 30 Order, the howls of protest and cries of betrayal from his own party, as well as from the opposition, would be deafening.

There would be political chicanery in the Commons in the Lords, as there was with the Brexit legislation, with Mr Johnson’s evident lack of enthusiasm spurring Tory sabotage.

If there was a Yes vote, the required Scottish Withdrawal Bill would then be a bitter and epic affair for his successor, who would probably be crushed by the fight as Theresa May was when she inherited Brexit after Mr Cameron’s resignation.

After two rounds of constitutional trench warfare, the Tory party would be divided and shattered.

So faced with a choice between the unsustainable and the suicidal, I’d expect Mr Johnson to pick the former.

Forget the long-term, he’d play for time so Indyref2 and its fall-out didn’t happen on his shift, and pray events changed Ms Sturgeon’s fortunes.

If there is another SNP majority, he will say the pandemic means the economy should be the top priority, not the constitution, and the SNP’s pursuit of independence in the depth of a crisis just goes to prove they’re reckless monomaniacs at heart.

He can also argue the precedents of 2011 and 2015 don’t fit with 2021.

In 2011, there hadn’t been a referendum on independence. Now there has been one and it’s too soon to try and reverse the result. While in 2015 there hadn’t been a referendum on Europe for 40 years, comfortably more than a generation.

This won’t change any SNP minds but will give him scraps of cover.

Considering the alternative for Mr Johnson, the unsustainable is likely to prove surprisingly long-lasting.